Transfer of suit under Section 25 CPC justified to avoid conflicting findings, duplication, and inconvenience in parallel proceedings.

Section 25 CPC was applied to permit transfer where two suits between substantially the same parties involved common and interdependent questions of fact and law. The Court treated the power of transfer as wide and expedient where separate trials risked conflicting findings, duplication of evidence and unnecessary inconvenience. It noted that the evidence was substantially common and available at Madras, the parallel proceeding there had already reached a similar stage, and the balance of convenience favoured transfer. The request to proceed under Section 10 was not accepted, and the Seoni suit was directed to be transferred to the Madras High Court on its Original Side.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit pending at Seoni should be transferred to the Madras High Court under the power of transfer conferred by Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The power of transfer under Section 25 is wide and is to be exercised where the transfer is expedient in the interests of justice. Where two suits between substantially the same parties raise common and interdependent questions of fact and law, trial by different courts creates a risk of conflicting findings and unnecessary duplication. The evidence in both matters was substantially common and locally available at Madras, the Madras proceeding had already reached a similar stage, and the convenience of avoiding multiplicity and inconsistent decisions outweighed the objections based on expense and inconvenience. The request to treat Section 10 as the proper course was not accepted, and the transfer was directed without prejudice to the jurisdictional objection in the Madras suit.

Conclusion: The transfer was held to be justified and the Seoni suit was directed to be transferred to the Madras High Court on its Original Side, in favour of the appellant.

---